Good and Bad
There is such thing as a good and bad movie - objectively speaking. Some have tried to argue with me that taste is subjective and hence, there is no such thing as good and bad, just different. They've gone so far as to say it's arrogant to think taste is objective. Hogwash.
Yesterday I watched two movies in a row which can prove my point: The Black Swan and Soul Food.
The Black Swan is a pirate film starring Tyrone Power and Anthony Quinn. Written by Ben Hecht, based upon the Rafeal Sabatini novel and directed by Henry King, The Black Swan is emblematic of what film lovers refer to as the golden era of Hollywood. Funny, smart, and clever, the film still holds up today as is comparable to any Hawks or Sturges film from this same era. The story is about Pirates. The English crown has tried to co-opt one of the most successful pirates - Captain Morgan - to become governor of Jamaica and help stop all the pirating of the high seas. Some of his captains follow him into respectibility while others opt to fight. Treachery lurks around every corner, Tyrone Power falls in love with the former governor's spoken for daughter, and lots of slapping and sword fighting ensue.
What is amazing watching this film is that EVERY single character is smart, tricking other characters, and quickly reacting (oftentimes violently) in their own self-interest. Rarely do you see that in films today. If you are lucky - one character is really smart. In this film, every character is smart and in a sense, too smart, in that they all discover information that they take to mean something it doesn't...but it all makes sense in the film....the use of dramatic irony is impecible. Shakespeare would be giggling.
On the flip side we have Soul Food, the Vanessa Williams and Vivica Fox melodrama. This film contrasts well with The Black Swan because instead of consistently smart characters, the film is comprised with idiots. The problem is that some of the characters are supposed to be smart (because the dialog keeps insisting so) and others are supposed to be not as smart (but have a lot of soul because they can cook), and yet both sets of characters act unbelievably stupid. First off, Vanessa Williams calls in a cousin to beat down her brother in law when she for some stupid reason thinks her brother in law hit her sister (wouldn't you just ask your sister???). She is this hot shot lawyer with tons of money and connections and her way of handling speculation is to call a cousin to "beat him down - but no using guns." Ahh, yeah. What planet are you on? But it's not only intellectually stupid...it's also emotionally stupid. Why do characters who we are supposed to believe love one another bumping and grinding with ex-girlfriends at their wedding? Why do sisters bicker at the table over nothing just to show they don't get along? Why does Makhai Phiefer try to beat up his boss when he eggs him on?
Soul Food is an all black cast made by a black filmmaker and yet it falls into the stupidest black stereotypes for many of it's characters - the old Aunt Jemima character, the angry just got out of jail troublemaker who can't control himself physically, the jazz musician. It just goes to show that stupidity is indeed, race blind.
11 comments:
I can't tell if your opening bit about objectivity is ironic, but if it isn't, my question for you is this:
Suppose a fifteen year old black girl sees Soul Food and loves it. Maybe the nonsensical plot line and character motivations are irrelevant to her, and she enjoys the dialogue, the costume design, and a host of other things in the movie. For whatever reason, she enjoys watching the film, and calls it a "good movie."
And you venturing to say that this girl is mistaken, and even though the movie gave her a significant amount of pleasure, the movie is still not any good? It seems to me you can only do so by replacing her criteria with your criteria, which is...subjective. People like movies for lots of reasons, not just plot coherence and character development.
maybe there is a different way to think about it...let's take football, for instance. some people may love rex grossman - but he is an objectively bad NFL quarterback. they might say - i don't care if he's bad, i like him, i like the bears, i like the way he plays. people like football players for lots of different reasons. but that doesn't make him a good quarterback.
on the other hand, i don't like brett farve. i think he's incredibly overrated. i don't root for him. but he's still a good quarterback - objectively speaking.
just because someone "likes" a movie, doesn't make it good, especially if they have no taste.
I don't think you made your point. In sports, there are stats. In art, there's no comparable, measurable data available. At its core, your argument is asking us to take your word for it -- which, I'm sorry, is simply a matter of taste. (And for someone who worships Mann as you seem to, frankly, I'm not sure your judgement can be trusted...)
Further, the criteria by which you have been judging these films has been heavily biased toward traditional American filmmaking. Which is fine, seeing as you're an American and all. But filmmakers who don't see things so linearly (New Wave, Italian neo-realists, Dadas, Surrealists, etc., etc.) would do their best to fail your tests and would probably make something all the more interesting because of it.
I see what you are saying Greg, but I would take Anonymous a step further and argue that even stats, while more objective perhaps than art, aren't nearly as objective as we might think. The whole premise of Moneyball and the success of the Oakland A's is that we often quantify stats poorly, and emphasize certain subjective stats over others that are more valuable. Rightfielders with strong arms record less putouts because no one runs on them, to take one example in which stats lie.
Another example would be the coach who is able to take Rex Grossman and make him a successful player in a new offense. Grossman isn't an objectively good or bad player, or anything in terms of objective critieria, and nor is a work of art.
I don't even think you could take Grossman's performance in the past season and say that it was objectively bad. But then I'm pretty much a full-on pragmatist these days, and don't believe in the objectivity of anything anymore. I don't even believe in the objectivity of being suspicious of objectivity, which might be a logical contradiction....
i love how the blogosphere seems to encourage lively debate. i'm not sure why it is, but i went to a panel at SXSW on celebrity blogging and for some reason everyone was sniping at each other all the time...at times it really annoys me, and at times exhilirates me. anyhow, i guess i'll respond because i like to get the last word...
first off, there are "stats" for movies - box office, oscar awards, film festivals and critics awards, thumbs up or down, etc. There is also film criticism, which although not numerical (like in sports stats) serves as a form of analysis of the influence of certain movies and so forth.
but further, i agree completely with nate's point that stats aren't nearly the objective indicator of sports performance...no more than say box office is an indicator of movie quality.
on several other points, i'm going to challenge anonymous. they claim movies are art. why? i don't see how one can claim rush hour 2 is art. it certainly isn't more artistic than watching zidane play soccer or montana lead a 2 minute drill.
second, the point about bias towards american filmmaking seems to me borderline retarded. my post was based upon two movies i watched that morning - which yes, both happened to be american films. but i - perhaps to my detriment - never laid out a criteria for a good vs. a bad film and therefore, since my criteria was never laid out, is pretty tough to be considered skewed towards american filmmaking.
also i never said anything about linearity, and i'm frankly not sure what A meant when he/she used it. i'm trying to think of new wave films that aren't linear narratives - last day at marienbad, i guess.
most of godards new wave films to me seem linear. same with the few neorealist films i've seen...can't speak to the surrealists and dadists...but regardless, i'm not saying i'm the arbiter of taste. but simply because i'm not necessarily the arbiter of good taste doesn't mean there is no such thing.
and rex grossman will NEVER be a good NFL quarterback. there isn't a coach on the planet that could take that guy and turn him into a QB.
it's like saying - carrot top could be a good actor with a good script and a director. no, he can't. and he won't. the bears got to the super bowl despite grossman, just like a tv commerical could be watchable despite carrot top.
maybe i'm not making my case well enough, but it's an instinct i know to be true. all you need to do is sit down and watch a replay of a grossman meltdown - or force yourself to watch Dunsmore. No subjectiveness, just a plain old bad movie.
I'm okay with you having the last word, but I just don't think your definition of objectivity with regard to art or sports would hold up in any philosophy department. This instinctual sense of what is good or bad that you speak of is in no way a barometer of objectivity, and even if you feel it in your bones, that is probably just an evolutionary urge to shape order out of the surrounding chaos. I think we need to look at why we naturally drift towards a concept of objectivity despite a total absence of proof.
perhaps it wouldn't hold up in a philosophy department...
but i'll back it up a few bits and try to be simple and clear. i should say the instinct of good or bad isn't just "in my bones," it's actually from training - by watching a lot of movies and talking about lots of movies. it's similar to sports "instincts" that players develop through a lot of practice.
but i think the best analogy is writing. there is such thing as bad writing - bad grammer, bad sentence structure, bad spelling, bad essays, etc.
in addition to that, there is debate about authors - some people like ayn rand and some people like john steinbeck and some people like james joyce. but they are all great writers.
and many people like clive cussler, john grisham and dan brown - but you'd be pretty hard pressed to say they are good writers in the same way rand, joyce, or steinbeck are good writers. but they do spell correctly.
and i don't mean to be an elitist, and i think there are great writers who write "pulpy" fiction - le carre, ellroy...in the same way there are great filmmakers who do low brow material - john carpenter, paul verhovan. but there is a way to distinguish filmmaker and writers that isn't just subjective, but takes into account the deftness of their craft and how they capture the zeitgeist of their time.
But there is no objectivity about grammar, spelling, and sentence structure. The way we spell words and how we arrange them have evolved over the centuries, and will continue to evolve.
I would disagree that the authors in question are "great" writers. Each does some things well, and others less well. It depends on one's subjective preferences. I think Joyce is extremely overrated, Steinbeck is great for capturing an era but lacking in narrative complexity, and Rand pretty much a bore whose characters are ideas trying unsuccessfully to pass for human beings.
My great writers are those who display more wit and rhythym in their prose than the authors you choose, and who deal in deeper shades of grey when it comes to character and plot. I just feel in my bones that Jane Austen crafts a far more pleasurable sentence for me than Steinbeck, and that her novels are psychologically richer than the relatively straightforward world crafted by Steinback.
Most of my friends would prefer Steinbeck to Austen, and I would say that's because they don't know what to look for when they read. Heck, until I took a terrific class on Austen I myself didn't know what to look for in her novels- or I should rephrase and say that although I enjoyed them, I didn't realize how much I was missing.
It's all subjective. I don't in any way think my appreciation of literature is on a higher plain than you if you happend to like different stuff from me. I remember you liked Larry McMurtry's All My Friends are Going to Be Strangers. I couldn't get past the first few chapters. This really has more to do with us being different people and looking for different things in a book than it does about the objective value of the novel.
there is such a thing as bad taste - and you know it when you see it. ugly haircuts, clashing attire, poorly time jokes. i don't understand why this is such a hard concept to accept, it is basic common sense. talking around in circles about this author and that author - i get it, people have different preferences and tastes. that's obvious. but this incessent circle of relativity is frankly, sort of boring and to me, eludes what is a good topic of conversation - good movies and good books.
"there is such a thing as bad taste - and you know it when you see it. ugly haircuts, clashing attire, poorly time jokes."
You think some 20-something Native American chick from the year 1400 thinks the haircut you or I have right now is hot? Or that she would laugh at George's comic timing on Seinfeld?
There is no higher form of haircuts or jokes that all haircuts and jokes can be compared to from all cultures and time periods and contexts for all of existence. Everything you or I think of as good is contingent on a host of local factors.
Yes, I use the phrase "bad taste". I use it as shorthand for "I find that unappealing." But absolutely no objectivity here. I can still participate in conversations about good movies and good books even if I recognize my opinions don't correlate to any higher objectivity. I don't see why you need to put the two together.
Post a Comment